Single judge held that an order of injunction is not conclusive evidence of possession; the question of dispossession by plaintiffs must be decided after evidence during trial, thus allowing a counter-claim.
The revision petition was dismissed as the question of possession must be decided during trial after taking evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1379 of 2008
Date of decision: May 18, 2009
Kanwar Singh and others
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Faiz Mohd. and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbnar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5. Mr. A.K. Takkar, Advocate for the respondents No.6 & 7.
A.N. Jindal, J
The question whether the defendants/respondents were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit by the plaintiffs is a matter to be decided during trial after receiving evidence of both the parties on merits. The order of injunction cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence to determine the possession. As such, that cannot work as obstacle or embargo for filing a counter claim by the defendants.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is
dismissed.
May 18, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of injunction can be treated as conclusive evidence to determine possession during the pendency of a suit.
Kanwar Singh and others
Faiz Mohd. and others
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
